More Trinity stuff

[Jac3510]

I've got a question for the G&S community, as per the poll:

Must a person believe in the Trinity to be saved?

Please not that I am not asking if a person must believe in the deity of Christ (although that certainly makes for an interesting side discussion). Also, note that I'm not asking why you do or do not believe in the Trinity. I'm asking about your beliefs regarding the belief or lackthereof in the Trinity.

Thanks much

[Pierac]

Jac3510 quoted:

Must a person believe in the Trinity to be saved?

This is a easy question.

The Old Testament prophets are silent on this issue, along with the Apostles and Jesus Himself. There is no mention of the Trinity in association with salvation.

John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

[zoegirl]

I guess my concern would be how can someone believe in the deity of CHirst without accepting the trinity? And it seems clear that you must believe that Christ was the Son of God and was capable of conquering death for salvation.

[FFC]

To be honest, I want so much to say yes, but as Pierac points out there doesn't seem to be any scriptures that say you have to believe in a triune God to be saved.

[Fortigurn]

To be honest, I want so much to say yes, but as Pierac points out there doesn't seem to be any scriptures that say you have to believe in a triune God to be saved.

That should ring alarm bells for some people.

[Kurieuo]

I've got a question for the G&S community, as per the poll:

Must a person believe in the Trinity to be saved?

Please not that I am not asking if a person must believe in the deity of Christ (although that certainly makes for an interesting side discussion). Also, note that I'm not asking why you do or do not believe in the Trinity. I'm asking about your beliefs regarding the belief or lackthereof in the Trinity.

Thanks much

I do not believe someone needs to have a Trinitarian doctrine worked out, nor even understand it fully if anyone truly can comprehend God's nature. So I do not see it as necessary that someone needs to believe in the Trinity. Yet, to reject Trinitarian theology and the underlying reasons for it is I see to deny Christ's divinity. For Trinitarian thought was developed in response to the question of who Christ is given what He revealed about Himself. If Christ believed Himself to be God, and Christ is God, then what are we to make of God's nature given the person of Father who sent Him?

Perhaps it is better to say to not believe in the Trinity due to a denial of Christ's divinity is to deny who Christ really is. So one's faith in a Christ who is not divine can not be a faith in Christ at all. Yet, Christ could still show compassion for the rational misunderstanding of such people since Christ knows who He is. None of us completely know who Christ is so there has to be some leeway regarding our knowledge of Him. Yet, as far as I see it, someone who denies Christ's divinity is denying an essential part of Christ that has been revealed to us. So while I see people do not need to know or understand Trinitarian doctrine, I see people who reject the Trinity based upon a denial of Christ's divinity are not saved in the straight-forward sense of having faith in Christ as I read in Scripture.

As for those in the OT, I am sure we all make certain allowances regarding how salvation worked pre-Christ. For example, I am sure many here agree people did not need to know of and accept Christ before His being born. Yet, what Christian will therefore argue that people today do not need to have faith in Christ in order to be saved.

[zoegirl]

Well put, Kuriero

In so far as none of us can truly comprehend the nature of God, I agree with you. However, to deny Christ's divinity to me seems paramount to denying *what* He did on the cross, considering we would be denying His ability to conquer death and be an atoning sacrifice for us....the perfect lamb...the substitutionary death. To that end I think it is imperative to believe not only what Christ did but who He was (which really amounts to the same thing).

[Fortigurn]

Well put, Kuriero

In so far as none of us can truly comprehend the nature of God, I agree with you. However, to deny Christ's divinity to me seems paramount to denying *what* He did on the cross, considering we would be denying His ability to conquer death and be an atoning sacrifice for us....the perfect lamb...the substitutionary death. To that end I think it is imperative to believe not only what Christ did but who He was (which really amounts to the same thing).

Considering that the substitutionary penal atonement was a doctrine developed at least 800 years after the doctrine of the trinity, and even the satisfaction theory wasn't developed until at least 500 years after the doctrine of the trinity, it's difficult to see how either of them could be related to the trinity. The use of the penal substitution theory to support the doctrine of the trinity is a theological novelty.

I often have trintiarians say to me 'Hah, but if Jesus isn't God, then the doctrine of penal substitution would also have to be wrong!', and to that I reply simply 'Yes, it is also wrong'.

[Jac3510]

I often have trintiarians say to me 'Hah, but if Jesus isn't God, then the doctrine of penal substitution would also have to be wrong!', and to that I reply simply 'Yes, it is also wrong'.

I have heard a lot of people make this claim, but it is one I am undecided on. RIght now, I lean to the idea that Jesus' substitutionary atonement was not effective because He of His divinity, but rather because of His perfect humanity. Of course, no one could be a perfect man except God Himself, thus the necessity of the incarnation! But, again, I don't think the argument works that it had to be God who died for sin if it was to be effectual.

With that said, K and Zoe have pointed out the issue is not with the Trinity but rather with the divinity, as I alluded to in my first post. Since the clear majority opinion here at G&S is that belief in the Trinity is not necessary per se, I'd like to take this a step further and get all your thoughts on the necessity of the belief in Christ's divinity. What about Modalism? It certainly teaches the divinity of Christ. Or what of someone who rejects the Trinity simply because it seems hard to comprehend, but equally rejects Modalism for all the obvious reasons (Jesus praying to Himself?)? What if they simply throw their hands up and point to His Sonship and say, "Like Father, like Son. The Father is God, therefore, Jesus, in some sense, must be God!" Maybe that is sort of how the first Christians got through it?

Thoughts?

[Pierac]

Zoegirl quoted:

In so far as none of us can truly comprehend the nature of God,

I can tell you the nature of God. I can almost comprehend it too, and it is more powerful and any of His attributes!


Kurieuo should know my reply. Yes, please tell her for me.

I want to see how well you read me on this site. I get a chance now to see how I really come across to others. Can you answer this question for me with only 10 posts to my name? This could be a little fun.

Peace,

Paul



P.S. Fortigurn, you peak my interest on how you work out who God is. What are you getting at?

[zoegirl]

I often have trintiarians say to me 'Hah, but if Jesus isn't God, then the doctrine of penal substitution would also have to be wrong!', and to that I reply simply 'Yes, it is also wrong'.

I have heard a lot of people make this claim, but it is one I am undecided on. RIght now, I lean to the idea that Jesus' substitutionary atonement was not effective because He of His divinity, but rather because of His perfect humanity. Of course, no one could be a perfect man except God Himself, thus the necessity of the incarnation! But, again, I don't think the argument works that it had to be God who died for sin if it was to be effectual.

With that said, K and Zoe have pointed out the issue is not with the Trinity but rather with the divinity, as I alluded to in my first post. Since the clear majority opinion here at G&S is that belief in the Trinity is not necessary per se, I'd like to take this a step further and get all your thoughts on the necessity of the belief in Christ's divinity. What about Modalism? It certainly teaches the divinity of Christ. Or what of someone who rejects the Trinity simply because it seems hard to comprehend, but equally rejects Modalism for all the obvious reasons (Jesus praying to Himself?)? What if they simply throw their hands up and point to His Sonship and say, "Like Father, like Son. The Father is God, therefore, Jesus, in some sense, must be God!" Maybe that is sort of how the first Christians got through it?

Thoughts?

I think you just answered your own questions... Sin brought death, the payment was death...only a sinless person could escape death...."all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"....God's justice requiring satisfaction...God being incarnated satisfied justice, His atoning work on the cross being the perfect sacrifice.

LEst we are opening the can of worms again, sorry, but the atonement/substitutionary death is not an invention.....scripture from the scope of the entire OT supports this idea....it wasn't just invented. (I think we need to be careful to separate formalizing doctrine from simple invention....it is a far cry to accuse the early Christians of pulling doctrinal statements where they are not supported from scripture and simply observving that they built doctrinal statements from scripture) Early church fathers were beset with false doctrines spread by false teachers....surely you can understand their desire to establish foundational beliefs. Wasn't this, after all, the purpose of Paul's church letters? To address heresies in the churches?

However, again, I have read the previous lengthy thread pertaining to this topic and know that this might be a futile exercise. Neither camp will persuade the other, given the history of the topic.

As for the modalism....eh...I suppose as long as the divinity of Christ is satisfied...Despite Pierac's claim to the contrary, while God's nature may be understood from His actions (holy, righteous, sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient...) I doubt God's nature in HIs existence can be fully understood or *appreciated*. Bing finite, temporal creatures, we can hardly claim to know *how* God exists in the trinity and yet we understand that He does. When we approach God, most probably don't spend time thinking through the trinity from a formulaic process. So from an operational standpoint, an understanding of the trinity is certainly not required.

[Fortigurn]

Sin brought death, the payment was death...only a sinless person could escape death...."all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"....God's justice requiring satisfaction...God being incarnated satisfied justice, His atoning work on the cross being the perfect sacrifice.

Scripture please. Is there a reason why this managed to escape the first 1,000 years of Christianity? Is there a reason why Anselm was the first to stumble over part of it, and the rest had to be left up to the Reformers to find some 300 years later?

When the apostles expound the atonement, their consistent message is that it is Christ's complete humanity which was the reason why it all 'works'. They say nothing of his 'Deity', and say nothing of God having to become 'incarnated' to die in bizarre satisfaction of His own wrath.

[Fortigurn]

P.S. Fortigurn, you peak my interest on how you work out who God is. What are you getting at?

I work out who God is by reading the explicit teaching in the Bible, as opposed to pulling a few verses together here and there, running them through a couple of logical fallacies, and coming up with something the apostles never taught.

I look at the apostolic preaching speeches of the Acts as an excellent guide to the saving message of the gospel. If it's not there, then it's probably not a salvic doctrine. In those speeches we find the apostles teaching that Jesus was, and is, a man. They never teach he is God. They never teach the trinity. They never teach penal substitution.

[Jac3510]

I think you just answered your own questions... Sin brought death, the payment was death...only a sinless person could escape death...."all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"....God's justice requiring satisfaction...God being incarnated satisfied justice, His atoning work on the cross being the perfect sacrifice.

LEst we are opening the can of worms again, sorry, but the atonement/substitutionary death is not an invention.....scripture from the scope of the entire OT supports this idea....it wasn't just invented. (I think we need to be careful to separate formalizing doctrine from simple invention....it is a far cry to accuse the early Christians of pulling doctrinal statements where they are not supported from scripture and simply observving that they built doctrinal statements from scripture) Early church fathers were beset with false doctrines spread by false teachers....surely you can understand their desire to establish foundational beliefs. Wasn't this, after all, the purpose of Paul's church letters? To address heresies in the churches?

However, again, I have read the previous lengthy thread pertaining to this topic and know that this might be a futile exercise. Neither camp will persuade the other, given the history of the topic.

As for the modalism....eh...I suppose as long as the divinity of Christ is satisfied...Despite Pierac's claim to the contrary, while God's nature may be understood from His actions (holy, righteous, sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient...) I doubt God's nature in HIs existence can be fully understood or *appreciated*. Bing finite, temporal creatures, we can hardly claim to know *how* God exists in the trinity and yet we understand that He does. When we approach God, most probably don't spend time thinking through the trinity from a formulaic process. So from an operational standpoint, an understanding of the trinity is certainly not required.

I'm not exactly sure how to take your response. I personally believe in substitutionary atonement. I think it is the best way to understand what happened at the death, burial , and resurrection of Christ. I don't believe that a person has to have a firm grasp on the concept to be saved, though. So far as I am concerned, believing that Jesus death was in some sense directly related to the Sin problem--and my sin problem, no less--is enough for me in this area.

My point was that I don't believe, right now, anyway, the the reality of the substitutionary atonement rests on the Trinity. I don't even believe it rests on Jesus' deity. I can see how a person could logically hold to sub. atonement and yet be a modern day Arian. The reason is that, from my studies, the importance of the Cross is not that God died, but that the perfect man died. Even more important than that is His resurrection, but that's another story.

So, is Jesus' divinity important? Of course it is. It is somewhere tied up in the words "God's Son." Further, it gives us a rational basis for believing in such things as His impeccability. But must we believe it to believe in sub. atonement? No. And must we believe in sub. atonement proper to be saved? I don't think so. So I don't see any grounds in making belief in the Trinity a necessary basis for salvation. For me, salvation comes when we believe that by believing God's Son is the Christ who died and rose from the dead for my sins that God promises that we have everlasting life.

[Fortigurn]

I can see how a person could logically hold to sub. atonement and yet be a modern day Arian. The reason is that, from my studies, the importance of the Cross is not that God died, but that the perfect man died.

This is Anselm's satisfaction theory, rather than strict penal substitution.